Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Looks like it is time to gather the main talking points in one section again.

Regarding paragraph 2: The aim was never to combine them, since they say the exact same thing. The scientific method refers to the practice in natural sciences of formulating a hypothesis, performing a controlled experiment and then check the results of that experiment against the hypothesis. The checking of the results is the empirical part. In other words, empiricism is part and parcel, a sub section if you will, of the scientific method. To say that someone reject both the scientific method and empiricism, is like saying: "The Americans have criticized the Chinese for not liking any type of football. In a related criticism, their leaders have been accused of not liking soccer." If some group of people doesn't like any type of football, its completely redundant to start listing the various types of football (e.g. soccer) the leaders of this group don't like. Not to mention that you can't criticize the so called leaders of a school for the same thing you've already criticized their entire school of. In that case, the criticism section could be just one big run down of "critiques" against individual Austrian economists.

Regarding Shenoy and Mises.org: Mises.org is the web site of the Mises Institute. It is a web portal that aims to collect and distribute all work done by Austrians and has done remarkably well. It runs a book store, provides a large portion of Austrian books for free, arranges seminars, conferences and other academic events, even actual courses open to the public. Everything that is published as a Daily Article is screened by Austrian scholars and editors prior to publishing. It also houses the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. To say that it isn't a reliable source about Austrian economics or economics in general is blatantly, demonstrably false. Mises.org and sourced found on that page has been used throughout the article. There is no reason to object to it now. Misessus (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding fringe: As Byelf, GwenGale and S.Rich have noted:

A second paragraph is not needed. But I'd move the Hayek observation into the first paragraph and combine the Rothbard responses. As for Mises, we do not need comments about him being an "unscientific" economist. (Criticisms of him as an individual thinker can go into his article.) ¢ The complaint is that the Austrian School itself is not scientific. Nor do we need to say "this leader or that leader" has shortcomings. The criticisms are levied against the school itself, which has adherents as well as leaders and founders. If other editors want to keep more of paragraph 2, namely the criticisms and responses, they might put them into a footnote and thereby avoid/lessen the weight problem.

"The meaning of the NPOV page is clear". Yes, it is. It explains that "SMALL minority" viewpoints are not given parity, not just a "minority" viewpoint. You also claim that the examples the page gives are irrelevant. This is ridiculous. Why have them there then? The examples are there for people to get an idea of what a "SMALL minority" viewpoint is. A small minority viewpoint would be like (the examples used) Holocaust denialism, moon landing denialism, claims that the Earth is flat, and claims about Knights of the Holy Templar getting the Holy Grail. Those are examples of ideas with the flimsiest of evidence. You may think the Austran School viewpoints are generally crazy compared to other economic schools, but that doesn't mean they're on par with the examples given on NPOV. Which, I suppose, is why you've essentially claimed by fiat that the NPOV page says "minority" instead of "small minority" and that the examples it gives are irrelevant (I guess they're just there to confuse us). Apparently, a "small minority" is just whatever you want it to be. Also, this is a page on the Austrian School, not on a general economic topic (crowding out, supply+demand, deadweight loss, etc.). If it were a general economics page, even then it would still be appropriate to have an Austrian School example follow a Monetarist/Keynesian one. However, can't you at least agree that the Austrian School page have Austrian responses to criticisms? Are the Austrians simply not allowed to have their responses to mainstream arguments on their own page? Should we eliminate the responses of ANY minority position even on their own pages? How is anyone to learn about the arguments in any debate? Finally, no one is trying to give "equal validity" to Keynesianism and Austrianism. Telling people about one side's arguments and another's does not imply they are equally valid. What is being debated is "parity", as in, "does this argument get to follow another?"

The policy is at WP:V. Inclusion has to do with verifiability, not truth (please see also WP:Truth). The policy says nothing about "validity." As to what's "mainstream" and what's "fringe," from the outlook of en.WP sourcing policy I think a Nobel prize easily trumps claims as to the latter. Austrian School is not fringe. This article's content comes down to consensus {WP:Consensus), which is not a vote and which can (and will) shift now and then, whatever volunteer editors of any outlook may do at this time. The notion that good faith edits on this topic will be "rebuffed" reminds me more of WP:Battle than anything else.

The Austrian viewpoint is clearly not fringe anymore, certainly not so that it is made NPOV. Just because it is a minority, does it make it small, fringe or otherwise irrelevant. Nor does including responses from Austrians to specific claims by critics give undue weight to the Austrian view point, and it certainly doesn't make the article written from an Austrian view point. To claim that is ridiculous. Every edit has been sourced and supported by senior editors.

BigK and DC are doing the exact same thing they did when they fought for the inclusion of the Schiff and Mises-bits earlier, and against the inclusion of the Hazlitt and Hansen bits. The burden of proof has been carried several times over by several editors. These two do not own the article, and are in no position to arbitrarily decide what goes in and what doesn't, deleting and reverting every edit without any consent from the talk page. Unless there is a consensus against deleting paragraph 2 and including Shenoy, these edits should be carried out and remain. Misessus (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your first point, empiricism and the scientific method are not equivalent. You can reject the latter and not the former, e.g. David Hume. The first paragraph also talks about formulating theories in terms of mathematics and making "positive" contributions to economics.--Dark Charles (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Remind me would you, how exactly David Hume used the scientific method but rejected empiricism. Misessus (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the following is noted in the very first sentence of paragraph 2: "...application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method." The two paragraphs level the exact same criticism and should therefore be removed. Misessus (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The scientific method implies empiricism, but the reverse is not true. And Hume rejected the notion of induction, which means logically speaking you can't make general propositions about nature from past events. See the Problem of induction.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you've brocken

WP:3rr: 1, 2, 3, and 4.--Dark Charles (talk

) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a novel interpretation of Hume. Could you point to the Mises.org article that explains it that way? TFD (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know if you're being sarcastic... I don't think there is a Mises.org article about it. You can read about Hume's problem of induction in his book

Treatise of Human Nature. Karl Popper's book The Logic of Scientific Discovery is also really good, though I never finished it.--Dark Charles (talk

) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not paragraph 2, which is what Misessus erased.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the specific edit please?--S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I found it.18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This, Misessus' argument seems to be empiricism and the scientific method are identical, which is false. Further more, as I said earlier there's actually a whole bunch of stuff in the first paragraph besides the scientific method stuff.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

DC, first, you didn't explain or support your position one bit. Second, the very first sentence in the erased paragraph stated that empiricism is fundamental to the scientific method. In my view, the criticism section is overly generous to the mainstream view, having moved all the Austrian responses to the footnotes. I find that solution quite ridiculous. If the responses can be in the footnotes, there is no reason why they can't be incorporated in the section. Also, I believe even mainstream economists such as Christina Romer have debunked the myth about the Long Depression in the 1870s, so it should be removed. Misessus (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Re empiricism, the scientific method, and philosophical controversies thereof: My college philosophy course was a long time ago, but it may be helpful to consult Empiricism, assuming you consider WP a reliable source. The excerpt below from section 1.1 ("Usage") basically supports Dark Charles's point that "empiricism and the scientific method are not equivalent," but the distinction is subtle. The article left me confused about Hume's view, in particular, though (see section 2.3, "British Empiricism"); John Locke, Descartes, and the other heavyweights cited below may be better examples of philosophers who accepted this distinction. The excerpt:

Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience.

Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method". ^[2]

[Emphasis added. Note: I omitted references that aren't hot links because they wouldn't render properly on a Talk page.]

BTW, I came to this article like any typical WP user would: seeking basic information about the Austrian school of economics, about which I know very little, so I have absolutely no pre-formed opinions one way or the other about the debate in this section. Unfortunately, I must confess I didn't learn much from the article, and, with a few notable exceptions, the generally low quality, NPOV problems, and lack of civility of the discussion on this Talk page detracted from, rather than contributing to, my knowledge of the subject. No wonder we "non-Austrians" don't know much about the topic—too many of the "contributors" to this page don't know enough about the subject to offer constructive commentary, either! --Jackftwist (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although a reasonable reading of Hume is "you can't make general propositions about nature from past events", I cannot find where he says that one may make general propositions about nature based on intuition. My impression was that this interpretation must be from Mises.org, because I never came across it. TFD (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The essense of the Austrian approach is that economics is too complex to be described by empirically derived formulas and instead rely on intuition. That places them outside the scientific approach, which they freely admit, but some of their supporters consistently object to this description.. TFD (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the "footnote AS responses" idea: This is NOT acceptable to me, and I've already explained why. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 August 2011

First a note to Misessus: We're not talking about the Long Depression in the 1870s. We're talking about the second paragraph in the [old] criticism section. And I've always said that the scientific method implies empiricism (even that has been called into question a bit by Jackftwist's comment), by the way. My point was that the two are not equivalent, which has been your justification for the removal of the material.

Now onto empiricism and the scientific method. Empiricism is the belief that all meaningful knowledge is derived from experience. The scientific method is a system, which uses empiricism, to make true propositions about nature. These are not equivalent. You could object because induction is not rational, i.e. it's not valid to make inferences about the future from the past.

Here's why induction is not logically valid: For example, consider the sequence, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,7 .... Reasonable folks, after looking at the first eight terms in the sequence would say that the next term in the sequence would be 2. However, there is nothing in any of the eight terms in the sequence that implies anything about the following term. The same goes for the use of induction in nature. For example, consider a billiards game. There is nothing within the cue or the eight ball that implies anything about where the eight ball goes when the cue ball hits it. But regardless, the scientific method makes observations about where the cue ball hits the eight ball and where the eight ball goes, and then with that information the scientist forms a hypothesis about it. If that hypothesis is tested and holds, then the theory is accepted. However, this process is not rational; nothing about the cue or eight ball implies anything about where the eight ball goes when it's hit. The scientist has made his theory simply by observing past events and then making a general conclusion. Thus--in some sense--it is rational to reject scientist's proposition about the relationship between where the eight ball is hit and where it goes. Since this process is applied to all scientific propositions, one can reject them all in the same way. But simply because you've rejected this doesn't mean that you've rejected the notion that all meaningful knowledge is derived from experience.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You still need to explain how this means that we can make general propositions about nature based on intuition. TFD (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Intuition? I don't understand. As far as my own personal opinion about making general propositions about nature from intuition (not a typo): I don't believe you can. But that's not really important for this discussion.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And I think Hume would probably categorize general propositions about nature based on intuition as nonsense. He was as straight an empiricist as they come... though it has been a long time since I've studied his stuff.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to re-phrase. You wrote that "you can't make general propositions about nature from past events". Could you please explain how one may make general propositions about nature. My understanding of your comments was that you were using Hume to defend the method of Austrian economists, which I assume make general propositions about nature without using past events. If so, I would be interested to read some article where they explain this. TFD (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to defend Austrian economics at all. The point of all this was simply to show that there is a difference between the scientific method and empiricism. Misessus was arguing that they were the same, and using that as justification for removing paragraph 2 of the criticism section. I accept the use of the scientific method to make general propositions about nature... the only problem is that my position is not rational. It's a matter of faith :(--Dark Charles (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

DC, what in that long and rather unlettered text proves your point that empiricism is somehow completely separate from the scientific method, and that you can use the scientific method without empirical data? Nowhere to be found. Now, you can give all your explanations you want, but you still haven't provided proof that these two are completely unrelated and thus merits separate paragraphs of "criticism". In this context, they have always been part of the same criticism as evidenced by the wording of paragraph 2, which states that empiricism is fundamental to the scientific method. Also, the very fact that this "criticism" is leveled against the so called leaders of the Austrian Shool and not the school itself shows that we are talking about the very same thing, but packaged differently. Given your open hostility towards the Austrian school, it is obvious that this is nothing but an attempt to find anything, something, to add to the criticism section. With this logic, you could have a 10-page criticism section, citing each criticism leveled by mainstream economists against every particular statement made by Austrian economists. This obviously wouldn't do, nor does this. You've been given every chance to make your case, and you've failed. Misessus (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you didn't understand my explanation, but it's actually your job to explain why they're the same and why that justifies the deletion.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus, what in that long and rather unlettered text proves your point that empiricism is somehow equivalent to the scientific method, and that using the scientific method is somehow the same as just any use of empirical data? Nowhere to be found. Now, you can give all your explanations you want, but you still haven't provided proof that these two are wholly related and thus do not merit separate paragraphs of "criticism". BigK HeX (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK, your comments will be ignored as your only aim is to distort the article and muddle the discussion.

DC, I've already proved it. In the very first sentence, it says that empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method. To first criticize the AS for rejecting the scientific method, and then criticize its "leaders" for rejecting individual parts of the scientific method, is obviously redundant and serves no purpose other than inflating an already grossly distorted section. By what authority do you act as if you owned the article, and has the unilateral right to revert any edit or insert any material without ever having to make your case? Misessus (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is the authority. I see your problem: It's simply logic. Does the proposition "gas is fundamental for a car running" mean that a car running and having gas in it are the same? Saying "empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method" is the same as saying "the scientific method implies empiricism", which I've already said several times now. What you're doing is saying A implies B therefore A=B. That's not right. You also need to prove B implies A.--Dark Charles (talk

) 16:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the car analogy was spectacularly weak. And as explained, the empiricism-criticism wasn't deleted, it was added to the overall criticism for rejecting natural science methodology formulated in paragraph 1. So its still there, but more appropriately included. The paragraph 2 was otherwise quite over-the-top anyway, more a rant of cheap shots than actual scientific criticism. Surely the WP page shouldn't sport ad hominem attacks and blatant mudslinging? Misessus (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Misessus: It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out logical structure. Your reasoning is faulty. S rich: I'm restoring the text to the original version, so

WP:BURDEN applies. The sourcing has never been challenged. Misessus' argument was that empiricism and the scientific method were identical, which is false. He has been using faulty logic to prove his point.--Dark Charles (talk

) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was an analogy. Empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method, which is why these criticisms are related, as it was stated in the original text. Therefore, it makes sense to merge them into the same paragraph, instead of having a long, redundant paragraph consisting of little more than outright smear, like that slur about Mises. It's not necessary, nor is it appropriate. The key source was moved to paragraph 1. So there is no issue of burden here. You are doing the exact same thing you told me I wasn't allowed to do when I was discussing the nature of economic predictions. Howcome the rules always change so whatever you do is automatically sanctioned, but whatever anyone else do is automatically against the rules? Misessus (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you can't rewrite

WP:BURDEN just to push your agenda. If you make an edit, either inclusion or deletion of sourced material then the burden is on you. You can forget about the car example. What you're arguing is that the scientific method implies empiricism therefore the scientific method and empiricism are the same. That's faulty reasoning. I like that we're using logic because I know--with 100% certainty---that you're wrong. I'm sorry if you don't understand.--Dark Charles (talk

) 19:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the obligation. My point is that, first of all, I haven't deleted anything, second, I've included the criticism in the paragraph detailing the rest of the criticism related to the scientific method, and thirdly, that I have in fact carried the burden to the extent needed. I think that the way the criticism looks at the time of this writing is quite alright. Misessus (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You deleted the whole second paragraph and simply carried over one sentence, and rewrote one sentence in the first paragraph. What's your justification for the deletion of all the other stuff?--Dark Charles (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you after the 10th or so time of unilateral reverts decided to actually engage in a discussion. I've explained my position many times already. The only actual criticism was contained in the first sentence of that paragraph, stating very clearly its connection to the broader criticism regarding the rejection of the scientific method. It even said the criticism was related. The rest of the article was very little more than mudslinging and pointless ad hominem against the "leaders" of the AS, though no such leaders have ever existed or exist today, in addition to poorly sourced quotes from some of these supposed leaders. It was wholly inappropriate and clearly nothing but an attempt to inflate the criticism section, for whatever reason. This article is about the Austrian school. Any criticism mentioned should be about the school of thought itself, i.e. its theories and methodology. Therefore, the last sentence about Mises being the typical unscientific economist isn't just blatantly wrong, its completely ridiculous and has no place whatsoever in the article on the Austrian School. If WP really wants to lower itself to such childish smear, it should limit that to the articles about the actual person. Claiming that Mises was this and that is in no way, shape or form a criticism of the Austrian School. That is why I'm removing that sentence.

Clear enough for you? Misessus (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my annoyed tone, but I'm getting a bit frustrated with the way this article has been edited. All standards seem to have been thrown right out the window. It also bothers me that without the heroic efforts of people like GwenGale, S.Rich and Byelf, supposed guardians of WP rules and policies like you, BigK and LK would have been content with having the integrity and informative value of this article torn to shreds. Most, if not all, your objections and references to WP rules and polices have been proven to be misguided at best, blatantly wrong at worst. Aren't you supposed to take a neutral stance as senior editors, regardless of what article is in question, and also respect the expertise of those who clearly are more familiar with the subject matter? This is an honest concern on my part, so I should appreciate a serious answer from you. Thank you. Misessus (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't respond to the majority of your comments because I think they were violations of

WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, saying that Hayek was a non-scientific economist is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack on someone is when you attack someone personally instead addressing the argument at hand. The statement was a conclusion of the paragraph's argument, thus not an ad hominem attack. Also, arguing against leaders of Austrian economics is quite appropriate as well. The "Austrian School" is simply an abstraction of the lump sum of propositions made by the school's leading members. Just like how you were using predictions of members of the school to validate the Austrian School, criticisms of leading members of the Austrian School are criticisms of the school. My comment also covers your new argument for the deletion of the second paragraph of the old criticism section. FYI, I didn't re-add the second paragraph because the section has changed too much, but my same argument goes as far as the equivocation of empiricism and the scientific method. I'm reworking the criticism section a little on User:Dark Charles/Sandbox.--Dark Charles (talk

) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone the archetypical unscientific economist is clearly ad hominem. What's more, it is not relevant to an article about a school of thought. Such smears belong in the articles about the specific person you are smearing. If you want to go down that road, the whole criticism section could be filled with things mainstream economists have said about Austrian economists. That doesn't add anything to the informative value of the article. Regarding the predictions, I would remind you that I was against that whole section to begin with, but it was you among others that wanted it, without any consideration of what economic predictions actually are. Misessus (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The way the criticism section reads at the time of this writing is quite okay, in my opinion. It brings up the most important, on point criticisms of the mainstream in a very readable, well sourced manner, without superfluous ad hominem comments. It also include a reasonable level of Austrian responses to the criticisms. In my view, there is no need for any further changes.

The Mises-slur is, again, completely redundant and serves no purpose whatsoever. I therefore suggest that the section is left as it is. Misessus (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. The Austrian theory proposes that prices rise right before the crash. This is because of the realization of the inflation, or in other terms, the realization of the "forced savings" that went on in the boom which causes a fall in the ability to command consumer goods. So, consumption would fall right before (the part that Keynesians can never explain, but this is besides the point) the crash. Then businesses would fail. So, isn't Krugman's criticism invalid and therefore not applicable to the criticism section? - Phattonez (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. Are you seriously suggesting that we remove a
   original thought experiment
   purporting to show that the source is wrong?
2. Do you truly believe that you are smarter than a Nobel prize winner?
3. The point Krugman makes (and that AS has no way of answering) is, since productive capacity has not changed, and if
   Say's Law
   holds (which AS believes), why does total economic activity drop during a bust? If production remains constant and supply creates it's own demand, then a drop in one type of demand (investment), would be made up for by increases in other types of demand.
4. You're also wrong about consumption falling before the crash. Both consumption and investment rises during a boom.

LK (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that we remove a reliable source because this source is wrong. He doesn't understand the Austrian perspective.
2. An appeal to authority? I guess because a Nobel Prize Winner believes it, it must be true. I wonder what Hayek thinks about that.
3. Because you don't understand Say's Law. Say's Law states that DESIRABLE production creates its own demand. No one has ever seriously put forward the proposition that because you produce it someone will buy it. Overproduction occurs because the inflation is not instantly realized. Once it is realized, consumption falls because of increasing prices, and so investors realize that their investments have not paid off because they won't get the demand that they expected because prices adjusted.
4. Obviously consumption and investment rise during the boom, that is the definition of a boom! I said that RIGHT BEFORE THE BUST consumption decreases.

Phattonez (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm striking some comments above, they're kinda snarky, unnecessarily antagonistic and unhelpful in this situation. Let me start again, and try to explain policy here on Wikipedia, and why it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about Krugman's argument.

The principle for inclusion in WIkipedia is

reliable sources

(such as peer-reviewed articles, university textbooks, respected journals, magazines and newspapaers) have stated on a subject, to decide what to include in articles here. So, Krugman being a noted expert in economics, and having published in a reliable source on this subject, we need to include his argument on this page regardless of whether we believe it's true or untrue.

Essentially, we need to have a little less faith in our own beliefs, and a little more faith in the mainstream scientific establishment. A principle that I think almost everyone should follow in their everyday life. We humans do tend to be a little too sure of ourselves. LK (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's such a stupid argument (Krugman's) that I feel it's not doing this page any justice. What if I found a source that contradicts what Krguman is saying? Wouldn't that be fine to put after his part? - 75.85.53.11 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few factors that determine if new content is suitable for inclusion. Possibly the two to factors to assess first are notability and reliable sourcing. Some "lone wolf" who writes up an opinion that hasn't attracted any attention probably isn't notable enough to mention. A theory posted on some gold-selling forum probably will encounter RS problems. BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian School is considered a heterodox school, meaning it is outside of the mainstream. As a result, many denounce it for that reason alone. Why do we always believe that just because a majority of people believe something to be true, that it actually is? Since truth is obviously a subjective idea, and there is no way to establish an objective agreement on what truth is, the only objective thing in the world is that truth is subjective. It matters to time, place, culture, etc. Our definition of what is true is always changing, as individuals, as a society, and as a species. When new, reveleant information comes along, we must analyze it along with the previously established information, hopefuly making the best decision and adding this useful information into our dialog on human existence. Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian Economist, classified this as Creative Destruction, that is innovation and entrepreneurship will radically change our perceptions and our paradigms for every single activity. I hate to say it, but sometimes we purposely ignore relevant information for our own selfish purposes, and often ignore it because we are simply ignorant. Choosetomind (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Krugman "doesn't understand the Austrian perspective", it's that he's concluded (as have most other economists) that the "Austrian perspective" is flawed and inaccurate. RedXIV (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Krugman either fails to understand Austrian economics, or deliberately misrepresents it to further his statist agenda. i would say that the former interpretation is more charitable.76.103.102.240 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right of course he either doesn't understand it or is evil. Right. Because if you're good and you understand it, then there's no reason you wouldn't side with them~ </sarcasm> Cosman246 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Krugman has stated MANY times that he's an "unabashed proponent of the welfare state." 50.55.156.188 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a separate objection to the same text; it is written as if this all-inclusive "empirical observation" is fact, but it is not, as demonstrated by all of the reports making a big deal of spending in industries such as cosmetics being unaffected or actually helped by the current recession. Spending in the majority of sectors may fall, but the real empirical observation is that not all do. Could someone improve this part of the article to better reflect the nuances of the situation? Ergbert (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Krugman article and it seems, to me, like the text in the Wikipedia article is a bit of a stretch. The point of the Krugman's article was that if recessions are caused simply by a reallocation of resources from consumption to investment or vise-versa--as Austrian economists believe--then unemployment would stay constant. Krugman then states that Hayek and Schumpeter's explanation of unemployment is that it's caused by the transfer of workers from one sector to another. Krugman then states this is unreasonable, because that would imply that unemployment would be high during the boom as well, because there is worker transfer then too. So it seems to me like things might need to be reworked a bit in the article.

It's true, however, that aggregate spending does decrease at the exact time that the recession happens, because recessions are just a decline in aggregate economic activity. Sometimes that decrease in spending is due to a shortage of supply--so people can't spend or can't afford to spend as much as what is need for stability--and sometimes it's because people just don't want to spend, but it's always due to lack of spending. --Dark Charles 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't understand how Krugman can be considered an expert. Paul Samuelson won the Nobel Prize too, but as late as 1989(!), he was adamant that the USSR would overtake the US, a position he had held for decades. So if winnig the Nobel Prize is the only credential Krugman has, then he is no expert. Bear in mind that Krugman is a keynesian as much as Samuelson, and hold the same beliefs and theories as Samuelson did. In addition, Krugman has on several occations shown that he simply doesn't understand the Austrian business cycle theory. Every time he tries to describe it he goes totally wrong, prompting the expression "krugmanite argument", which means you simply make something up, claim that it is your opponent's position and then argue against your own strawman, pretending your arguing against your opponent. This is Krugman's MO. This means that his "criticisms" doesn't mean anything, because he isn't really criticizing the Austrian position, he is criticizing his own made up fantasies. And speaking of ignorance, LK and BigHex have absolutely no business commenting on the Austrian school, because they are at least as clueless as Krugman.

Misessus (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and you are an expert? Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is human nature to want to feel self-confident in knowing all the answers.

Marxists.--  Novus  Orator

  08:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, your personal opinions matter so much more than the hard work of an economist. Also, Keynes opposed Marx. Make of that what you will. Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Krugman's critique is verifiable and -- within Austrian circles -- is a well-known criticism related to the Austrian School. Any editor's personal grudges aside, that's sufficient for Wikipedia. We most certainly are not here to report only The Truth as preached by the Austrian School. BigK HeX (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Show me where Krugman's critique has been "verified". Robert Murphy has corrected Krugman on his erroneous accusations numerous times. Furthermore, it is clear you know nothing of the Austrian School so you have no business editing this article. I myself have refuted Krugman several times, it is very easy to do. As far as the edit goes, the section is AUSTRIAN criticism of the mainstream, not the other way around as it reads now. I'm reversing your undo. If you want to include the criticisms removed from that section you can put them in the section dealing with criticisms of the Austrian school. But since you don't know anything about anything related to AS, you'd do everyone a favor by staying the hell away. Misessus (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Given your past history in these situations, it probably won't end well. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean your history of ideologue bullying? You are not competent to be an editor on this page. Get lost. Misessus (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, the demagogue's talking. I guess Wikipedia will be "LOOK HOW AWESOMELY SMART THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL IS EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG NO MATTER HOW QUALIFIED OR TRUTHFUL THEY ARE" Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, the ignorant little runt is running his ingnorant, bigoted mouth. Misessus (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While a critic with as high a profile as Paul Krugman certainly deserves to be cited, I think that in the article on the Austrian School, an Austrian response (explicitly here for example) and explanation should be provided why Austrians believe his understanding of their business cycle theory is wrong (which they certainly go out of their way to explain). It isn't Wikipedia's job to report The Truth, however, in the article about a particular school of thought, it certainly is Wikipedia's job to report what they believe to be The Truth and why. --89.217.134.83 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected for two weeks. See

To that end, when the protection does lift and for so long as editorial bickering lasts, this page is likely headed towards an overall 1rr editing restriction for all editors, with a warning that 1rr will not be a licence to carry on the edit war by making one undo a day. The back and forth of edit warring brings only rot to an article. It's disruptive and harms article content in ways both unseen and unforeseen, from any outlook, by those who edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with

Austrian School, the bottom line problem I see is that there has never been much editorial interest, which nearly always leads to a failure in forging a respectable consensus. Hell .... the current editors probably couldn't even come to a consensus on whether Austrian School economics is a non-mainstream view even given the fact that it is almost never taught in economics curricula (with the exception of possibly only ~3 significant colleges in the entire country). BigK HeX (talk

) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason there's no "editorial interest" is because you in particular keep getting new users banned for both participating in discussion and developing valid rational refutation of your keynesian viewpoints. You should seriously be stripped of moderating privileges. Nodrogj (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I commented on editorial heed for this topic here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes to the criticism section at User:Dark Charles/Sandbox. Please take a look at tell me what you think.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I hold a research masters degree in economics, and have taken so many doctoral courses on the subject. I'm amazed that the section is short and so much weight is given towards Austrian rebuttals. The article reads that many criticisms are simply one economists position. Its not. Vast majority of Economists do not take Austrian Theory seriously, and only one Ph.D. granting university in the United States puts an emphasis on Austrian Economics, which is George Mason. The broad rejection of Austrian theory should certainly be given much more weight than it is in this article, considering that one of the key leaders of the field Hayek actually ended up with a Nobel Prize in economics many decades now. The lack of acceptance of the field among an overwhelming majority of Academic and research economists is certainly of interest. The way the article is currently written is certainly in a style of point-counter point which reads like an intellectual debate, which insinuates there is an intellectual debate which is present. There is not really, since Austrian economics is for the most part ignored by the main stay of economics.

Just a general comment to editors, most of whom I'm sure have limited training in economics. There was a survey sent to academic departments trying to guage why academics do not use wikipedia. I think one of the key issues that need to be highlighted is that in social sciences it often is hard for academics to take wikipedia seriously, because intellectual debates are misrepresented with political movements. Economics articles on schools of economic thoughts are especially susceptible to this, since it wieghts OP-Eds in major news papers articles are far easier to source and located than articles such as academic commentary intended for academic consumption. For examples articles concerning Keynesian economics v.s other schools rarely pay attention to the much more important methological battle that took place in academia and over states the pro government spending conclusion in Keynesian economics. This article could probably be improved greatly if one is able to seperate Austrian economics as an academic phenomena, from Austrian economics as a modern they political movement. The two are losely related, but most of the people representing the political movement are not academic economists. As a result the states of the field are too different. 71.45.11.0 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"which insinuates there is an intellectual debate which is present. There is not really, since Austrian economics is for the most part ignored by the main stay of economics." There is an academic debate going on (including here)--just because a position is unpopular doesn't mean it gets debated (Krugman wrote on ABCT as recently as January and Murphy responded a few days later). What are we supposed to do? Remove Austrian School responses to criticisms because their beliefs are unpopular? How is that neutral? And before you say it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Shenoy_and_thefreemanonline.org Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

Wow...you hold a masters degree in economics and have taken many doctoral courses? Is that supposed to impress us? Most professional economists are on the payroll of the FED, so of course they reject Austrian economics. AE is, however, the oldest continual school of economic thought. Moreover, it doesn't have the dismal track record of mainstream economics, which, to quote Bill Maher, is a litany of getting shit dead wrong. From the Wall Street crash 1929, to the non-existent depression of 1946, to the Bretton Woods system, the stagflation of the 1970s, the S&L crisis of the 1980s, the dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s. From Keynes' suggestion to bury FED-notes in glass jars underground and let people dig them up, to Samuelson's insistence on the USSR overtaking the US from the early 1970s to 1989, to Krugman's Space Alien Invasion solution to our present day crisis.

Just to name a few examples of the top of my head. With a track record like that, of course they will shun the one school of thought that get things right, that understand what economics actually is and, more importantly, what it isn't.

It's not the mainstream economists that don't take AE seriously, it's the other way around. For good reason. So excuse me for not being all giggly about your supposed training in economics. Like Jefferson said, you'd be better informed of current events if you didn't read any newspaper at all than if you read those of his day. Likewise, you're likely to have a far better understanding of economics if you've never taken an economics course than having spent years studying Keynesianism, monetarism, neoclassicism or whatever mishmash of mainstream schools that gets taught in the universities today. Misessus (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any finite mathematical problem is decidable. Obviously. Really, really obviously. "Human behaviour" is finite. You could conduct the "mathematical modeling of a market" by literally modelling every single tiny nerve impulse in every single human being that has ever existed on this planet. This would be a finite problem. And so decidable. Please revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.174.147 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

and to model them finitely, you'd have to presume or prove that nerve impulses are not influenced by quantum effects. BigK HeX (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Or have a way to predict them. Casting aside the need to define what one calls finite, in some ways, the sum of human behaviour is indeed finite, but is it wholly finite? Even if it is finite, is anyone clever enough to gather all the data (without disrupting outcomes through measurement), find and map out all the variables and then show whether or not equations and algorithms can meaningfully model the sum outcome of human action (behaviour)? So far, the answer is "no," that aside from perhaps some dodgy and rough modeling of very small subsets, this has not been done, much less with Keynesian methodologies. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Human behavior is not a mathematical problem. End of discussion. Misessus (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's another way to put it. Editors might want to keep in mind that academics flogged the notion of luminiferous aether for a long time, some of them up until the 1960s. There is a place for sourced criticism of AS in this article, as there is a place for sourced criticism of Keynesian economics in articles within that topic area. This article is not the place, however, for a narrative hit piece on the Austrian school, nor is it within en.WP policy to build such a hit piece by excluding reliable and verifiable sources written by Austrian economists (much less those who worked as academics and were published as academics) as "fringe." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing the not-at-all-disguised pro-Austrian bias from the article does NOT make it a "hit piece". The article currently goes to great lengths to promote Austrian economics far beyond its prominence in the real world. Eliminating such a bias is our duty as editors. BigK HeX (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that there is pro-Austrian bias is the article. What (specifically) are your arguments? Please avoid re-asserting your assertions. See my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Shenoy_and_thefreemanonline.org Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

To be added to the See Also's once the economic blockade is lifted: Fear the Boom and Bust --S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, be sure to add it to the "Keynesian economics" and "ABCT" articles. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

Already been added and deleted in the past. Doesn't seem very appropriate for an encyclopedia. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem appropriate to whom? I don't think there's any consensus on that.Nodrogj (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not meet

external links requirements. TFD (talk

) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is for the article to be added as a "See also", not as an External link. The appropriate forum for discussing that article is on its talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me to it!Nodrogj (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a series of edits and reverts over the inclusion of Shenoy in the Criticism section. Balance, Burden, Undue, Consensus, Redundant, etc. are all cited as justification. The last set of edits said she was used/cited not-used/cited twice. Previously there were spats over including the Austrian School responses to criticisms in the main text. (E.g., the spat is not limited to Shenoy.) I attempted to resolve this pissing contest by putting the AS responses in footnote form (and I see that Thomas Woods is still used both as a footnote response and as a citation). It really comes down to an unresolved dispute about providing AS responses to the criticisms in this sectopm. One set of editors says respond and the other set says don't.

"Each side gets their say" is not necessarily an encyclopedic solution. Each side should get weighted properly, and that most certainly doesn't suggest that the minority Austrian view gets equal weighting to mainstream views. So far, every attempt at integrating Austrian "counter-criticisms" has suggested equal validity between the two views. To me, this seems a pretty clear violation of

WP:GEVAL

.

In any case, I appreciate your earlier attempt to resolve the issue via footnoting. BigK HeX (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have striken my comment about creating a separate criticism article. My thought was that it could help resolve the controversy and that it would be similar to articles like

Criticism of the Israeli government. DarkCharles' comment and edit about forking, even if the separate article is strictly NPOV, is well taken.--S. Rich (talk

) 01:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the comments from my sandbox. I don't think anybody will mind that I moved them here.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You've removed the Carilli and Dempster response to the irrationality criticism, so I wouldn't support this (but I don't care about the empirical debate which has been going on forever). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

I thought it was badly sourced. Is there something more detailed that you could put in there? The source was an abstract on Springer's website. It would be like using a book description on Amazon as a source.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, as far as the empiricism issue: I'm kind of tired of the debate too. I just reworded the first paragraph a bit. The criticism section has changed so much that I think it would be best, if something about empiricism were added, for it to be something new, which I'm too lazy to do.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this would work better? http://consultingbyrpm.com/uploads/2010.12%20Rat%20Ex%20and%20ABCT.pdf Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

Yeah, looks like it. I don't see how the prisoner's dilemma factors in, so I'd like to add a little more detail to what was there before too. I'll try to do that tomorrow.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if you don't go into debt at the too-low interest rate but a competitor does, they benefit from the low interest rate and you don't, and you get forced out of business by their superior market share; if you and your competitors go into debt at the too-low interest rate, there's a lot of malinvestment, and the economy as a whole doesn't work well, so everyone suffers equally. I'll try to find more of the Carilli/Dempster thing than an abstract tomorrow. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

I don't understand the relevance of the criticism relating to booms/busts prior to the Fed. Murray Rothbard did his doctoral dissertation on the Panic of 1819. Nowhere or anywhere in the ABCT is it said that business cycles can only occur if there is a central bank. The main charge is that artificially low interest rates fuel an investment boom in unsustainable projects, projects that cannot be completed because there isn't enough resources available to complete them all. Interest rates can be artificially low with or or without a central bank, because credit expansion alone causes an increase in the money supply which then leads to lower interest rates. Central banks have only exasperated this problem by dictating low interest rates outright, making them uniform throughout the economy, and of course provided various safeguards and guarantees for major banks, creating enormous moral hazards which in turn has increased the credit expansion and risk taking. So this whole idea that business cycles before the Fed is somehow a criticism against ABCT is completely baseless. There is an enormous body of Austrian literature on business cycles in the 19th century and earlier. So to summarize, this particular critique is a critique against something that in fact does not exist. They are criticizing the Austrians for a claim that the Austrians have never ever made. Remember that Mises started working on his business cycle theory before the Fed was even founded, and well before the crash of 1920 and then that of 1929. What I'm trying to say is that it would be nice to have the criticism section consisting of criticism that is actually aimed at something Austrians have said or done, not illusionary phantoms in the heads of various mainstream economists. Misessus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you. Just because the criticism "makes no sense" (and I agree it doesn't) doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, as it is a common criticism. Byelf2007 (talk) 08 September 2011

Then I should like to see a more forceful response, because right now it looks completely out of place. Misessus (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you find a (good) link that more-or-less expresses your argument on this matter. Byelf2007 (talk) 09 September 2011

And another thing, just because a criticism is leveled, it doesn't mean that we as editors of an article can't be selective. Why do we have to incorporate criticisms that even from an objective and completely neutral point of view makes no sense whatsoever? Why is it a purpose onto itself to include every single delusional thing every mainstream economist have ever said about the Austrian School, no matter how misguided or factually incorrect? 88.114.255.18 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a criticism that gets made. If you think it doesn't get made often enough to warrant mentioning, that's one thing, but I don't see why a common criticism shouldn't be mentioned just because it isn't remotely plausible. Byelf2007 (talk) 09 September 2011

Uhm...because of the very fact that it isn't even remotely plausible? Isn't that reason enough? :) Misessus (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not until it stops getting made--it's common. Do you see my point? The wikipedia article isn't implying "This insightful criticism really merits serious thought" by mentioning it. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

Murray Rothbard in The Mystery of Banking, page 103: "We already see here the outlines of the basic model of the famous and seemingly mysterious business cycle, which has plagued the Western world since the middle or late eighteenth century. For every business cycle is marked, and even ignited, by inflationary expansions of bank credit. The basic model of the business cycle then becomes evident: bank credit expansion raises prices and causes a seeming boom situation, but a boom based on a hidden fraudulent tax on the late receivers of money. The greater the inflation, the more the banks will be sitting ducks, and the more likely will there be a subsequent credit contraction touching off liquidation of credit and investments, bankruptcies, and deflationary price declines. This is only a crude outline of the business cycle, but its relevance to the modern world of the business cycle should already be evident."

The response could, e.g. inserted before the Carilli-Dempster repsonse, be the following:

"This criticism, however, is thoroughly misguided, because Austrians have never argued that only central banks cause business cycles. Instead, they argue that business cycles are caused by the expansion of credit by fractional-reserve banks, a phenomenon that has been present since the 18th century, in America and elsewhere, long before the Federal Reserve System was founded." Misessus (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph is actually about business and banks being irrational by making and accepting loans that aren't in their interest. The seventh paragraph is the one that's actually about what you're saying, and already has a response.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, it should be inserted before the Woods-bit, cause Woods doesn't address the inaccuracy of the criticism itself. Something like this:

According to economic historians, economies have experienced less severe boom-bust cycles after World War II, because governments have addressed the problem of economic recessions.[21][22][23] Critics have also argued that, as the theory points to the actions of fractional-reserve banks and central banks to explain the business cycles, it fails to explain the existence of business cycles before the establishment of Federal Reserve in 1913. For example, the Panic of 1873 initiated the Long Depression in the United States and much of Europe. There were also severe market crashes in the United States of magnitude comparable to the 1929 crash in 1869, 1884, 1896, 1901, and 1907, though there was no central bank or national monetary policy in the US during these crises. In fact, the movement to establish central banking in the United States was in part a response to the business cycle, particularly the Panic of 1907.[24][25] This has especially been true after central banks were granted independence in the 1980s, and started using monetary policy to stabilize the business cycle, an event known as The Great Moderation. This criticism, however, is thoroughly misguided, because Austrians have never argued that only central banks cause business cycles. Instead, they argue that business cycles are caused by the expansion of credit by fractional-reserve banks, a phenomenon that has been present since the 18th century, in America and elsewhere, long before the Federal Reserve System was founded. Austrian School historian Thomas Woods also argues in his book Meltdown that the crashes were caused by various privately-owned banks with state charters that issued paper money, supposedly convertible to gold, in amounts greatly exceeding their gold reserves.[26] Misessus (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would go with "misguided" not "thoroughly misguided" (peacock). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

A response is already in there, and Austrians have been pretty consistent in blaming central banking for economic problems. Pointing out that the economy has been more stable and recessions have been less severe since the establishment of central banking is certainly not a misguided criticism. However, I changed "existence" to "severity" in the paragraph.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a misguided criticism of ABCT because it assumes that ABCT only applies to central banking and it doesn't. It is, however, a plausible criticism of opposition to central banking. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

And the Austrian School is opposed to central banking. "The Austrian school has been battling the central bank since 1913 and before" (source). That was literally from the first result I got when I googled Austrian economics central banking.--Dark Charles (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Really dude? ABCT is not anti-central bank. And ABCT comes from AS, yes, and most AS people are anti-central bank (or perhaps tenets of the school itself is). That does not mean ABCT (a theory) is anti-central bank. You can support central banking and believe in ABCT (and want interest rates set "properly"). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

Please DC, don't try to say what Austrians have or haven't done because you simply don't know anything about it. Austrians have never blamed the central bank solely, but they have acknowledged its important role in propping up the fractional-reserve banking system. However, it is the credit expansion that is seen as the main cause for the boom, and that is what commercial banks do, not central banks. Read the paragraph I cited from Rothbard's book. Does he even mention the central bank? Misessus (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you two checked the source, but that was the Mises Institute. The author of the article was Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. If I recall, that was the same author that wrote the Bretton-Woods source for the information Misessus put into the Austrian School article (information that has since been erased). And the paragraph Misessus cited didn't state whether the Austrian School is for or against central banking. I've clearly proven that the criticism in the criticism section is not misguided. I'm going to have to call

WP:OR if Misessus's suggestion is put in (there was no source for it anyway). By the way, you two might want to fix the Austrian business cycle theory page introduction, because it reads: "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies."--Dark Charles (talk

) 16:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

#1-Hayek made ABCT, not the Mises Institute. #2-Do you know what "exacerbated" means? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2011

You're arguing that the Mises Institute isn't a good source for information about Austrian Economics? You can't have it both ways; not too long ago Misessus was arguing that the Mises Institute was a fantastic source for information about Austrian Economics. And "to exacerbate" means to make things worse, but notice that it says "inherently damaging and ineffective" when it refers to central bank policies. If something is inherently damaging and ineffective, then it's inherently bad. Anyway, this is from an interview with Hayek:

Hayek: ...I believe that if it were not for govemment interference with the monetary system, we would have no industrial fluctuations and no periods of depression.

Reason: So trade cycles are caused solely by government monetary authorities?

Hayek: Not that directly. As you put it, it would seem that it results from deliberate mistakes made by government policies. The mistake is the creation of a semi-monopoly where the basic money is controlled by government. Since all the banks issue secondarv money, which is redeemable in the basic money, you have a system which nobody can really control. So it's really the monopoly of government over the issue of money which is ultimately responsible. Nobody in charge of such a monopoly could act reasonably (source).

That's an argument against central banking. So again, pointing out that the economy has been more stable since central banking is certainly not a misguided criticism. In fact, after reading this interview, I'm somewhat convinced that the original paragraph was probably fine too.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

#1 "not too long ago Misessus was arguing that the Mises Institute was a fantastic source for information about Austrian Economics" I AM NOT MISESSUS. #2 This doesn't matter anyway because you're basing what ABCT is off of an article by lewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Just because Misessus and I are arguing that ABCT isn't what it says in that article doesn't mean we think Mises Inst. is a bad source--HAYEK made ABCT. #3 "And the paragraph Misessus cited didn't state whether the Austrian School is for or against central banking." Then there's a problem with the source, not the assertion that ABCT isn't inherently anti-central bank. #4 The Hayek quote shows us his opinion on central banking. He is NOT saying "This is what ABCT is." #5 "but notice that it says "inherently damaging and ineffective" when it refers to central bank policies." Yes, it says "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies." This means that it is exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank POLICIES. As in, the policies by central banks which are inherently damaging and ineffective exacerbate malinvestment/bubbles. It doesn't say "ABCT is the theory which views business cycles as the inevitable consequences of policies done by central banks (which are always inherently damaging and ineffective)." Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2011

DC, what exactly is it that you don't understand? The ABCT says that credit expansion is one of the major drivers of the business cycle and that business cycles have been present for several hundred years. In other words, long before the Fed was founded. To claim that ABCT fails to explain pre-FED business cycles is FACTUALLY wrong, because it has been used to explain every bubble in US history, e.g. the Panic of 1819. Thus, ACBT DOES address and explain pre-FED business cycles, so claiming that it doesn't is demonstrably wrong. How can this be so difficult to grasp, when I've even cited Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking, in which he describes the basic ABCT without a single reference to central banking.

The issue of central banks have been incorporated into the ABCT during the 20th century because of the important role central banks now play in the business cycle. However, no Austrian have ever in any way, shape or form claimed that failed central bank policies are the only source of the business cycle. And just so you know, being agaisnt central banking and theorizing about what causes the business cycle are two completely different things.

Right now I can't figure out whethere you're lying or just being incredibly obtuse. Misessus (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said only. Have you even been paying attention to what's going on? Are you also arguing that the Austrian School isn't against central banking, despite statements on the Mises Institute website and those of Hayek himself? That's what Byelf2007 is arguing. Here's another anti-central bank statement: "The cycle of generalized malinvestment is therefore caused solely by centralized monetary intervention in the money markets by the central bank." That's from the Mises Institute's wiki about the business cycle, by the way. This argument has gotten silly. --Dark Charles (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason the pre-Fed recessions criticism of ABCT is an actual criticism of ABCT because of what ABCT is. I also never said Austrian School isn't inherently anti-central bank (I honestly don't know if that's the case). If it is, then the current definition in the article--which is far more complicated than it used to be thanks to me by the way--is too simple ("advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments and emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism"--there's nothing there about central banks). Either way, it's irrelevant whether or not Austrian School is anti-central bank. All that matters here is that ABCT definitely is not anti-central bank. "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit" and "exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective" central bank policies" [it does not say that central banks INHERENTLY contribute to ABCT]. If you have a problem with that definition, then change it and explain why it should be changed. You keep harping on this point that "Austrian School is anti-central bank", and, yet, even if that's true, it has nothing to do with ABCT as it is currently defined on this site. And you add one more "anti-central bank statement" from Mises Institute wiki? So what? Was the edit by someone representing the institute? Does that automatically mean Austrian School (or Mises Institute, for that matter) are anti-central bank? Do you realize the Mises Institute and the Austrian School are two different things? The only way you can prove that this critique isn't misguided (and I'm for including it ABCT article even if it is) is if you prove that ABCT is inherently anti-central bank. And you're arguing that Austrian School is anti-central bank (which is irrelevant), and that what (some guy on the wiki of) Mises Institute said as evidence of what the Austrian School (not Mises Institute) thinks about central banks, even though you're not taking issue with the Austrian School definition or the relevant one--ABCT. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2011

Is this a misunderstanding on your part? This is not supposed to go in the

Austrian School

page.

Next time you use the Mises Institute as a source for the Austrian School page I'll have to ask you that question: "do you realize that there's a difference between the Mises Institute and the Austrian School?" This argument is just silly. Yes, I know that the Mises Institute and the Austrian School are different. I'm using the Mises Institute as a source. My source says that the Austrian School is against central banking. You can't argue that the Mises Institute is a good source and then reject it when it says something inconvenient. By the way, my last quote was from the Mises Institute's Austrian business cycle Wiki, so that was an explicit statement of the Austrian business cycle position.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, dude? "This is not supposed to go in the

Austrian School page." So what? I'm pointing out that Austrian School and ABCT are different things. That's all. You need to hear it because you're saying 'If AS is anti-central bank (for which you provide little evidence), then ABCT simply MUST be also regardless of it's definition!' "You can't argue that the Mises Institute is a good source and then reject it when it says something inconvenient." I'm not sure when I said Mises Institute is a good source. Anyway, I don't think ABCT is whatever Mises Institute says it is. Get it? "By the way, my last quote was from the Mises Institute's Austrian business cycle Wiki, so that was an explicit statement of the Austrian business cycle position." Again, read my last post: "Was the edit by someone representing the institute?" This is like saying "We should have the article define X as thus and so because it's on this site (which anyone can edit)." The Mises Institute does NOT have a monopoly on what is and isn't AS and ABCT. Byelf2007 (talk

) 13 September 2011

I'll put this simply: I've verified, with a source that has generally been accepted as a good source for the position of the Austrian School, that Austrian Economics is against central banking. Thus, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Austrian School is against central banking. If you don't understand that you should take a look at

WP:OR.--Dark Charles (talk

) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"with a source that has generally been accepted as a good source for the position of the Austrian School" That doesn't mean we should. I'm not saying "It's not a good source", I'm just curious what your arguments are for us trusting the source. Part of the problem is that there hasn't been a simple long-time universally accepted definition for AS. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011

Well, my own opinions aren't really relevant. However I will say this: the Austrian School generally advocates free markets. Neither the lender of last resort nor the setting of monetary policy part of central banking (which are the two key functions of a central bank) are consistent with that.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this Criticism section is way overblown. If it was implemented as it is, it would take up about a third of the entire article. It needs to be slashed, and heavily.

We should make a "Criticisms of ABCT" article first (all the info is important). Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2011

Second of all, it still says "Critics have also argued that, as the theory points to the actions of fractional-reserve banks and central banks to explain the business cycles, it fails to explain the severity of business cycles before the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913". This is, as has been demonstrated, factually wrong. The theory does not fail to explain the severity of pre-FED business cycles, not least because the theory does not presuppose the existence of central banks. Also, the idea that business cycle were more sever in the 19th century is ludicrous. Up until 1921, there were no real depressions, just very short "panic", usually over within a year or so. We now also know that the so called Long Depression of the 1870s didn't actually occur, there was no Long Depression. In fact, output increased all through the 1870s. The main reason for believing that there was a depression was the continuously falling prices, but these were a function of the increased output. Even Christina Romer admits that now.

Third of all, a theory is per definition value free. ABCT doesn't argue for or against central banks or fractional-reserve banking, it explains the causes of the business cycle. The main driver of the business cycle is the credit expansion perpetrated by fractional-reserve banks. This distortion has, as a rule, been further enhanced by bad central bank policies. However, in theory, a central bank can raise the reserve requirements of FRB-banks to 100%, in which case credit expansion would be nigh on impossible. This means that a central bank doesn't necessarily cause business cycles or make them worse, it just so happens that central banks in general and the FED in particular have done just that, made things much worse. However, the ABCT itself makes no value judgements, but it offers a basis for conclusions, and as a rule, Austrians are against both FRB and central banks because of their propensity to cause and exacerbate the business cycle, not to mention the devaluation of the currency.

Fourth of all, of course Austrians are against central banks. How did that even become an issue? You think that they would favor central banks just because business cycles can happen without them? Central banks make things much worse, its bad economics and its bad policy. There are many reasons to be against central banks, both economical and ideological. You can be against central banks even if that is not the corner stone of the ABCT, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE. Is any of this in any way, shape or form still unclear? I sincerely hope not. Misessus (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the move of the criticism section from here to a new article is a pretty clear violation of

I've redirected the page back to here. Trying to put sourced criticism of AS into its own article is about the quickest way I know to stir up a PoV forking bashfest. At the very least, this article should be allowed to settle into some kind of consensus before splitting off content and even then, only owing to size. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism (and sundry alt PoV) sections often pop up in articles with editorial disputes, to stop the very "back and forth" noted at

WP:STRUCTURE. I must say, there shouldn't be this kind of bickering here, this is an encyclopedia article, neither a hit piece nor a promotional pitch on AS. It is understood, however, that as this topic becomes ever more political, some editors will only be happy with one or the other, mistakenly saying all the while, "that's the neutral one." Gwen Gale (talk

) 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Misessus complained about the criticisms section taking up too much space within the article. I don't really care one way or another, but I myself have found that there's a great deal of debate regarding the theory which isn't represented here. How long does the criticisms section have to get before it gets it's own article? Also, I'm not sure how this is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. It says: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, ***based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself*** [is there POV within criticisms section?], may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false" [is this the case within criticisms section?] Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

I don't see a "violation" of any article structure in DC's comment. I think its merely a statement as to where such a section ought to go when or if there is one.--S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So we can make a "criticisms of austrian school" page? Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

No. DC was right about the POV-forking. Even if criticisms of . . . . is set forth NPOV, the very fact that anyone creates it leads to more EditWarring. Best to simply focus on the AS article in and of itself. --S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously guys, it's ridiculous. I suggest deleting the entire section to put it more in line with

It isn't optimal with the criticism section, but it certainly doesn't violate

WP:STRUCTURE basically says it's not optimal. It would be better if criticisms could be included cleanly in the main prose of the article, but that's obviously extremely tricky. It's better to have criticisms exist non-optimally than not at all. CRETOG8(t/c

) 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nodrogj: Your provide no arguments--only assertion. Cretog8 is quite right that there's too much criticisms content to weave it into the article. WP:STRUCTURE is guidelines, not firm rules, and when the guidelines become basically impossible to follow, we go with the lesser of two evils. If we were going to be consistent with your position, we'd have to eliminate every criticisms section (and article) on this site, no matter how long it is compared to the rest of the coverage on the topic. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011